Sumer Lal Sharma vs State Of Rajasthan And Ors

Instant petition has been preferred under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying therein that the respondents be directed to register case/ F.I.R. on the basis of

written-report dated 30.11.2016 submitted by the petitioner in the Office of the Anti Corruption Bureau, J/9, Jhalana Industrial Area, Jaipur

(Rajasthan). It is further prayed that a direction be issued to the Investigating Agency that after registration of the F.I.R., they should conduct a fair,

impartial and expeditious investigation.

Succinctly stated that the petitioner instituted a complaint (Annexure-1) dated 30.11.2016 in the Office of the Director General of Police, Anti

Corruption Bureau, J/9, Jhalana Industrial Area, Jaipur (Rajasthan). In the said complaint, the petitioner made a grievance that for laying sewerage

pipes in the City of Balotra, total budget of Rs. fifty seven Crores was sanctioned but even though the amount of Rs.seventy Crores has been spent

yet the work of laying sewerage pipes has not been completed. A further grievance has been made that the Company to whom, as per tender contract

was given, was bound to repair roads dug-up for putting sewerage pipe lines. It is stated in the complaint that the work of the road repairs was not

carried by the Company but it was assigned to another Contractor, hence, loss was caused to the exchequer, and the tax payer has been made to

suffer.

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of the Constitution Bench in Lalita Kumari Vs. Government of U.P. and

Others, reported as A.I.R. 2014 S.C. 187, wherein following directions were issued :-

“Conclusion/Directions:

111) In view of the aforesaid discussion, we hold:

(i) Registration of FIR is mandatory under Section 154 of the Code, if the information discloses commission of a cognizable offence and no preliminary

inquiry is permissible in such a situation.

(ii) If the information received does not disclose a cognizableoffence but indicates the necessity for an inquiry, a preliminary inquiry may be conducted

only to ascertain whether cognizable offence is disclosed or not.

(iii) If the inquiry discloses the commission of a cognizable offence,the FIR must be registered. In cases where preliminary inquiry ends in closing the

complaint, a copy of the entry of such closure must be supplied to the first informant forthwith and not later than one week. It must disclose reasons in

brief for closing the complaint and not proceeding further.

(iv) The police officer cannot avoid his duty of registering offence ifcognizable offence is disclosed. Action must be taken against erring officers who

do not register the FIR if information received by him discloses a cognizable offence.

(v) The scope of preliminary inquiry is not to verify the veracity orotherwise of the information received but only to ascertain whether the information

reveals any cognizable offence.

(vi) As to what type and in which cases preliminary inquiryis to be conducted will depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. The category

of cases in which preliminary inquiry may be made are as under:

(a) Matrimonial disputes/ family disputes

(b) Commercial offences

(c) Medical negligence cases

(d) Corruption cases

(e) Cases where there is abnormal delay/laches in initiatingcriminal prosecution, for example, over 3 months delay in reporting the matter without

satisfactorily explaining the reasons for delay.

The aforesaid are only illustrations and not exhaustive of all conditions which may warrant preliminary inquiry. (Emphasis supplied).

(vii) While ensuring and protecting the rights of the accusedand the complainant, a preliminary inquiry should be made time bound and in any case it

should not exceed 7 days. The fact of such delay and the causes of it must be reflected in the General Diary entry. (Emphasis supplied).

(viii) Since the General Diary/Station Diary/Daily Diary is the recordof all information received in a police station, we direct that all information

relating to cognizable offences, whether resulting in registration of FIR or leading to an inquiry, must be mandatorily and meticulously reflected in the

said Diary and the decision to conduct a preliminary inquiry must also be reflected, as mentioned above.â€​

Counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that since cognizable offences were discernible, from bare perusal of the complaint filed by the

petitioner, the respondents ought to have registered the impugned F.I.R..

Mr. B.N. Sandu, learned Additional Advocate General cum Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents, has raised following two pleas :-

(i) That the work was executed in the City of Balotra falling within the territorial jurisdiction of District Barmer and, hence, only Principal Seat at

Jodhpur can entertain the present petition, and

(ii) That upon complaint (Annexure-1) received, a preliminaryinquiry was conducted and since no cognizable offence was made out, Investigating

Officer has recommended that no case for registration of impugned F.I.R. is made out.â€​

Counsel appearing for the petitioner, to controvert the above submissions, has relied upon the notification dated July 15, 1957 issued by the State

Government.

The said notification reads as under :--

“(Chapter 1 para 1-2, 1-5.10)

  (Chapter 6 para 6-2)

Extract copy of Rajasthan Gazetted Extr-Ordinary July 15, 1957 of Part -4 (Ga)..

 HOME DEPARTMENT (A) NOTIFICATION

Jaipur, July 15, 1957

No.F.14/1/4/HA/57 â€" In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (s) of Section 4 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, and all other powers

enabling in this behalf the State Govt. is pleased -

(1) to declare the office of the Special Inspector â€" General of Police, Anti Corruption, Rajasthan at Jaipur to be a Police Station, which will be

known as the Anti Corruption Police Station and whose territorial jurisdiction shall extend over the whole of the area of the State of Rajasthan: and

(2) to direct that the aforesaid Police Station shall deal with all cognizable offences relating to bribery and corruption including criminal breach of trust,

criminal misappropriation and criminal misconduct, in which a public servant is also involved.

Jaipur, July 15, 1957

No.F.14/1/HA/57.- In pursuance of clause (P) of Section 4 read with Section 156 and 551 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 and all other

powers enabling in this behalf, the State Government is pleased to direct that the power of an Officer-inchare of a Police Station shall be exercisable

by all officers of and above the rank of a Sub â€" Inspector of Police in the Anti Corruption Branch of the Rajasthan Police Force with respect to the

Anti Corruption Police Station as notified under Home Department (A) Notification No.F.14/1/4/HA/57 dated the 15th July, 1957.

by order of the Governor

DURGA PRASAD SHARMA Deputy Secretary to the Government.â€​

Secondly, counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that as per orders passed by the Supreme Court, if the preliminary inquiry ends in closing

the complaint, a copy of the entry of such closure must be supplied to the first informant forthwith and not later than one week.

I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties.

A perusal of the notification issued by the State Government vesting jurisdiction in the Anti Corruption Bureau at Jaipur, reveals that part of cause of

action has arisen in the favour of the petitioner to approach the present Bench at Jaipur.

Since the petitioner had submitted complaint (Anneuxre-1) at Jaipur and under the orders passed by the concerned Officer at Jaipur, the preliminary

inquiry has been initiated, this Bench has jurisdiction to entertain the present petition. Furthermore, a Coordinate Bench on 21.04.2017 had issued

notice. The present petition is pending for more than one year. No preliminary objection was raised, even though State Counsel has appeared on

numerous occasions. At this stage, to dismiss the present petition on the ground of territorial jurisdiction will be highly unjust, therefore, first submission

made by Mr. B.N. Sandu, ld. A.A.G. cum P.P. is rejected.

So far as second submission made by Mr. B.N. Sandu, ld. A.A.G. cum P.P. is concerned, it is undeniable fact that in pursuance of the complaint

(Annexure-1) submitted by the petitioner, a preliminary inquiry has been conducted by a competent Investigating Officer.

The Supreme Court in the case of Lalita Kumari (supra), wherein preliminary inquiry is held, has given following direction :-

“(iii) If the inquiry discloses the commission of a cognizable offence, the FIR must be registered. In cases where preliminary inquiry ends in closing

the complaint, a copy of the entry of such closure must be supplied to the first informant forthwith and not later than one week. It must disclose

reasons in brief for closing the complaint and not proceeding further.â€​ (Emphasis supplied).

Thus, to comply with the directions issued by the Supreme Court, it is mandatory for the respondents to furnish entry of closure report by disclosing

reasons, in brief, as to why they have decided not to proceed with the complaint.

Consequently, the present petition is disposed of, by issuing direction to the respondents to furnish contents of the entry of closure as to why after

preliminary inquiry case was not being registered on the complaint made by the petitioner. The respondents, if so advised, can also supply copy of the

preliminary inquiry to the petitioner. In view of directions issued above, the first grievance of the petitioner is readdressed in consonance with the

directions issued by the Supreme Court. A liberty is granted to the petitioner to assail closure entry and reasons disclosed in the preliminary report by

taking recourse to lawful remedy.

At this juncture, counsel appearing for the petitioner, has submitted that since the loss has been caused to the State exchequer and inspite of incurring

heavy expenses, sewerage is not working properly in the City of Balotra and due to potholes caused in the roads quality of life in the City of Balotra

has deteriorated and day-to-day inconvenience has been caused to the residents of the City and the motorist suffer accident every day, this Court is of

the view that this prayer is subject matter of larger inquiry and the same cannot be dealt with in a petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The

petitioner, if so advised, may file a Public Interest Litigation by filing proper Writ Petition before appropriate Bench of this Court having jurisdiction to

hear the Public Interest Litigation.